Wrong. It’s comical that you didn’t answer my question. But I’ll ask again. Would it be better to let the bum starve or offer them a demeaning opportunity to make some money for food( that they can refuse)? The “exploiter” here is feeding a bum while you’re galloping around on your high horse.
No, I already answered this question. It’s better to set up social policies in which bums aren’t given this Hobson’s choice; and setting up those policies involves, in part, advocating for them. It’s better to spend your energy helping someone–whether these bums or someone else–live a life of dignity, free from want, than it is to take advantage of someone’s desperation to satisfy your own sadistic perversions.
It’s only by pretending that the choice is sewer fights or nothing that you’re able to act like sewer fights are preferable.
I didn’t create the hypothetical. I believe you may have missed the entire point of this thread. It isn’t “would you advocate for policies so that people don’t have to take an exploitative job?”
I agree that it is better to spend your energy helping someone else. Where we likely disagree is that I wouldn’t consider “advocating” “policies” involving theft to be a noble pursuit. If you were able to help the poor through mutually beneficial exchange (that didnt involve the sordid fantasies of teengers) I would consider that praiseworthy.
“Theft”? Well officially poisoned by wilfully ignorant repetition of sophomoric Libertarian claptrap. Fuggetaboutit.
Well I think “exploitive” is a loaded word. Chinese workers may make much less than their American counterparts, but their living expenses are also much lower.
Is DrCube being exploited because he only makes $45k? Companies I work for in Manhattan pay $90k to kids right out of college. Well over $100k for MBAs or JDs. But they also have to pay $3000 in rent for a studio appartment.
What might be considered “exploitive” is that companies can take advantage of these differences in the labor market to undercut local manufacturers. But then you get into the economic concept of comparative advantage.
FYI we already provide welfare (including food stamps), Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and unemployment insurance.
And “we” are not one monolithic entity. We are 300 million people negotiating the best prices we can given whatever we earn for our services. “Basic survival” costs in Manhattan are very different from similar costs in Brooklyn, Jersey City, Weehawken or Secaucus. And yet people manage without Park Avenue appartments. It’s like a story I read about the high costs of living in Silicon Valley. Well, unless you are a software engineer for Google or Facebook or some startup, you don’t NEED to live in Silicon Valley. Be a chef or taxi driver someplace cheaper.
How rich are we once you account for our $12 trillion in public debt?
Both options are equally bad. One is equally an asshole for engaging in either activity.
People can and do willingly die rather than suffer extremely demeaning or humiliating situations. It’s not irrational, it’s human nature–to value some things over mere survival is part of what “separates us from the animals” as they say.
To place someone unnecessarily in a position where they have to make that choice–whatever they actually choose–is supremely evil.
The question is not whether it is evil or not. The question is which option is better. If the bum chooses to engage in the activity he is deciding that it is better than starving.
You asked: Would it be better to let the bum starve or to offer them a demeaning opportunity to make some money for food?
This is explicitly a question about what we ought to do to or for the bum.
So I answered: Both are equally bad things to do to him. Neither is better a better thing to do to him. Both are wrong things to do to him.
Oh noes, they can’t move away - they neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed to live there!
I have a gaming buddy who spends more time in a game whinging about how expensive it is to live in some not overly fashionable corner of Manhattan. I point out that he could live anywhere in the country he wants [his company allows him to telecommute] but he insists he absolutely has to live in NY but he can’t come up with any specific thing that requires him to live there. His personal choice is so expensive he bitches if he has to get new socks because he has worn a hole in the toe of one of the pair. :rolleyes:
The only thing that limits where we live is access to a military dispensary to pick p my prescriptions at, and access to an excellent GP to deal with my chronic medical conditions and manage any emergent acute issues. Well, also access to an excellent hospital that can manage to keep me alive during and after procedures. Great selection at farmers markets and grocery stores would be excellent - however if I had to drop back to the old school 20th century groceries with limited selection I could manage that as well. I don’t need a Whole Foods or any fancy organic money wasting yuppie grocery to eat well.